Physics

What does the science of physics say about time and space?

That question of course shows up immediately when we speak about the (eternal) continuation of our consciousness after passing away from our physical existence over here on earth in the four dimensions of time and space.

Where my knowledge of physics doesn’t go much further than my by and large lost knowledge from my secondary school period added with what I know as a just interested person from the media and some books about the developments in modern physics I still have as yet much difficulty in understanding Quantum physics, string theory, etcetera. I also don’t know quite well what to think of the mainly mathematically based modern theoretical physics when I also encounter critical opinions from physicists, who consider the assumptions of the theoretical physics as relying on unproven phantasies.

Overall article “The Origins of Space and Time”
Anyway this article ‘The Origins of Space and Time’ from the respected magazine ‘Nature’ from 2013 provides a good overview of the struggle of modern physics with the origin of space and time. While not wishing to give the impression that I understand this all completely, it gives a good impression of the directions in which answers are expected to be found.

So, I still ever haven’t found a clear bridge between my philosophy of life and th current scientific insights (which by the way don’t need to be limited to modern physics, but should also encompass other branches like for instance chemistry and cosmology). I am thus looking forward with interest to whatever new developments still will arise on the Quantum theory, gravity, dark holes, dark matter, and particles theory. Therewith also the question whether Newton’s laws are only applicable in the discernable world – except in the worlds of the very small of atoms and the very large of the planetary systems – or  nevertheless everywhere.

New theory on gravity of Erik Verlinde
In that sense the recent publication on the views of Erik Verlinde attracted much attention. I give her both the publications of November 8, November 9 and April 2016 in “popular language” in the Volkskrant, and also his original publication on the site Webarchiv of Cornell University. And shortly after that a possible confirmation by a critical colleague from Leiden. Though maybe all attention for this recent development has been a bit disproportional.

Vision of Dewey B. Larson
But in addition to that the vision of Dewey B. Larson (1898 – 1990), to which Don Elkins referred in his sessions with Ra, intrigues me. Larson worked his theory on gravity out in his Reciprocal System of physical theory’, a ‘Theory of Everything’ with a concept that is based on movement instead of matter. His books can be downloaded from the internet, but are tough reading. Because of that I included here an article Dewey B. Larson’s Reciprocal System of Physics of Jameela B. Boardman on his theory.

The reason why physics interest me that much in this context is, because I am curious whether it is conceivable, that ever a bridge between the physical and the metaphysical world will be possible (if ever that may turn out to be possible).

Then I think for instance of aspects with respect to:

  • the possibility of understanding space/time and time/space next to eternity within one concept
  • non-local consciousness
  • the way Ra had to tune in to a specific frequency for his communication with Carla Rueckert and had to search from his own consciousness toward a translation in earthly terms in order to express himself (does the transfer of thoughts consist of waves with a particular?).

During their session Don Elkins once asked Ra for his judgment on the views of Larson:

“Questioner: ….. I am aware of the physics of Dewey B. Larson, who states that all is motion or vibration. Am I correct in assuming that the basic vibration that makes up the physical world changes, thus creating a different set of parameters, shall I say, in this short period of time between density changes allowing for the new type of being? Am I correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things, which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory. “

Probably the vision of Larson is a start in the right direction.
I am curious to what still may come, although I don’t encounter serious opinions on his view in physics.

A new chapter based on Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED)
And then I came by mid 2017 in touch with the vision of Dr. Alan Ross Hugenot, who distances himself from the outdated – still Newton based – materialistic vision of the science of physics and builds further on the scientific insights of the past decades, since already in the beginning of the past century a new chapter had been opened with the Quantum Physics. More about that at the next page on the new metaparadigm on the conscious universe.